is the problem also in PostgreSQL 9.4.x? I'm going to buy a production's server with 4 sockets E7-4850 12 cores so 12*4 = 48 cores (and 96 threads using HT). What do you suggest? Using or not HT? BR Domenico 2015-07-21 11:07 GMT+02:00 Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On 21/07/15 20:04, David Rowley wrote: >> >> On 21 July 2015 at 14:59, Jeison Bedoya Delgado >> <jeisonb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeisonb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> hi everyone, >> >> Recently update a database to machine with RHEL7, but i see that the >> performance is betther if the hyperthreading tecnology is >> deactivated and use only 32 cores. >> >> is normal that the machine performance is better with 32 cores that >> 64 cores?. >> >> >> You might be interested in >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53F4F36E.6050003@xxxxxxxxxxxx >> > > However I do wonder if we have been misinterpreting these tests. We tend to > assume the position of "see hyperthreading is bad, switch it off". > > The linked post under the one above: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53ED371D.109@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > shows that 60 core (no hyperthreading) performance is also pessimal, leading > me to conclude that *perhaps* it is simply the number of cores that is the > problem - particularly as benchmark results for single socket cpus clearly > show hyperthreading helps performance... > > Regards > > Mark > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
